Positionality, Inclusivity & Ethics (10/6)
Thinking about normalcy and difference
Today the class learned about positionality, inclusivity, and the ethical dimensions of design practice.
Positionality
We are shaped by multiple social forces. Our social and spatial positions are not fixed to one. We stand on the intersection of various social locations such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, class, geography, and religion. Positionality is important to any profession since it influences how we understand the world around us. Our knowledge will also be determined by the position we adopt. From the different positionality which different individuals bring in, diversity acts as one of the key elements making up our world. Each of us must consider our social position, role, and power.
In this perspective, the class was challenged to break the conventional norms. While we may think of the world as a unity, we have to understand, in reality, the world consists of diversity and multiplicity. Pluriverse, a term introduced by Arturo Escobar, stresses us to consider that there are many different worlds. This concept encourages us to break out from the normative idea that development comes from the west and all the other cultures are following it as a single world.
Even the idea of normal is an illusion formed by language and categories. Difference is also socially constructed and depends on the context. While everyone comes with differences inherently, what frightens people and causes problems is the world using difference to bisect such as value, hierarchy, authority, and more.
As designers, erasing the idea of difference is not the goal. While using difference as one of the sources for creative, inclusive, and appropriate design, it is important to ask the following questions
- How useful are stereotypes?
- Is universality possible?
- How can we determine “normalcy”?
- How can I discern what’s right or ethical?
Inclusivity
Understanding the nature of difference, the class learned about Universal Design.
“Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design”
- Ronald Mace, 1988
The goal of universal design is to not exclude particular groups of people to get the assistance they need. While it is necessary to some people, the benefit is not limited to the ones who need it. Everyone can benefit from it and it promotes an inclusive society allowing human diversity.
As designers, we can fall into the paradox of inclusive design. While inclusive design asks us to focus on the widest possible audience, we must take human differences seriously which may severely restrict the widest possible audience. Therefore, the question of fairness is what we should keep in mind. As ways for being fair to the users, we must learn and create through positive interactions with people.
In-class activity
At the end of the class, students participated in the activity which was suggested by Hilary in the last class. The activity was deconstructing a design artifact through the lens of social context. Students found a product and assessed the following:
- What is it?
- Who is framing this “success”?
- Whose story is told?
- How is the problem framed?
- How many layers out did they go to address socioeconomic context?
- What values are built into the designed objects and processes?
- Who benefits?
- Who loses?
- Potential unwanted outcomes?
By analysing a series or “praised design products” from these lenses and questions, students were able to understand how deep some implications could be, and to what extent the consideration of success or right fit of a solution to a problem really holds in different context. Students uncovered how certain “technical” solutions that seemed ideal to solve a particular problem, were actually very exclusionary if socio-economic factors were truly accounted for (some examples showed how a product would be economically unfeasible or unaffordable for the target population). The question of “who wins and who loses” became very prominent. In addition, some groups were also mindful to consider a more-than human design view and ask questions about how these “solutions” were integrating the needs of other species or nature as a whole.
